zlacker

I don't think it's double-think, it's just a lack of consequential thinking. I believe the writers of the spec when they say that they just want to be able to see which ad views are real or not. They even lay out some (far too weak) ideas to keep the system from being mandatory and abusable. But they don't realize just how quickly things will go out of hand once the rest of the organization realizes what they have created.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

>>kalleb+(OP)
> it's just a lack of consequential thinking

Googlers tend to trust google, even when its readily apparent tool/system design obviously puts them in a control position above anyone else in matters that extend beyond their own walls. I've only met a few that will coyly admit they don't trust google, but maintain they have to keep up appearances.

I think it also explains their outspokenness on societal issues outside google's control. It's a distraction from thinking too hard about what societal bad google does have control over.

>>doglea+Ia
Exactly. This is common also with other tech companies. I knew an ex-Facebook employee who was defending them at the height of their "Facebook Research proxy monitoring underage kids traffic" scandal. I'm sure his team was trying to be moral in their work, but people don't realize this doesn't generalize to massive corporations or even that in their bubble their morals may be perverted.

>>kalleb+(OP)
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Fine. Then, when we arrive in hell because this person took us there, it should follow him all the rest of his days that he was too Pollyannish about the consequences of his own designs.